:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold a Conference Call every Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning; at: 8:00 AM (Mountain Time).

Our Conference Call number is: (857) 232-0158
Conference Code: 110045

While on the Conference Call:
To mute your phone: press: 4*
To raise you hand for a question or comment: press: 5*

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

In conjunction with our Success Network
We announced our participation in the
Self Made Man Contest
on our Facebook and Twitter pages.

What is the new Self Made Man platform?
It’s kinda like Netflix, but better.
The content and platform will help you change your life, and the world…

It launches: February 20th
And, to celebrate,
they’re giving away over
$35,000 in cash and prizes!

Click here to
Enter Now!!!

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by moving your cursor to the upper right corner of the announcement's green background and clicking the “X”.

Enacting language

The forum is for discussing the myths found on the Team Law website's Patriot Mythology page.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

User avatar
Posts: 11
Joined: Sunday July 8th, 2012 6:04 pm MDT

Enacting language

Postby Shamus397 » Wednesday July 25th, 2012 5:56 pm MDT

I've been reading "Authority of Law" by Charles A. Weisman and was wondering if the precepts outlined therein are worthy of further study, and in particular the idea that state statutory law is null and void if it does not contain an enacting clause such as "be it enacted by the legislature of the state of ...".

I am aware that not all states may have such provisions in their state constitutions, but the state in which I live (Texas) does. The Constitution of the State of Texas of 1876, Article III, Section 29 says, 'The enacting clause of all laws shall be, "Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas."'

It would seem to be common sense that any law that isn't enacted is null and void, but I am well aware that matters of law are sometimes not as simple as they appear.

Is this yet another Patriot Myth?

Some background on me:

For the longest time I labored under the impression of a rogue government with fear and loathing and only recently came to the understanding that pretty much everything being done to us is legal. I am therefore studying everything I can get my hands on as relates to law and its application.

Also, I thought that I should mention that I have read and understand Team Law's Standard for Review and I understand my status as a sovereign and my relationship to the trust created by the SSA. :)

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Enacting language

Postby Admin » Thursday July 26th, 2012 3:29 pm MDT

:h: Shamus397:
Thank you for your inquiry.

Please understand that we have no intention of ever becoming a source for people to come for reviews of other people’s private work. Simply put, we see no point in spending time reviewing third party opinions and reviews of the law before first using the Standard for Review to review the law itself. Thus, though we are familiar with Charles A. Weisman’s, work, we see no point in reviewing it here because such a review would be external to the purpose of this Open Forum system (which is: to eliminate e-mail to and from Team Law while providing a resource where people can learn about Team Law and our work to preserve our country [see Rule 1]).

We will say this much though: Weisman presupposes that the Magna Charta is a “Fundamental Law of the Land”, which it is not. The Magna Charta is an element of Great Britain’s history; and, it is not a part of the Fundamental Laws of the Land in the United States of America. Further, the Magna Charta has never had any lawful effect in the United States of America.

You do not have to read Weisman’s work too far to run into the concept of a “Sovereign Soul”; however, what he means by that phrase is less clear. What is clear is that Weisman does not seem to understand what Team Law published on the topic of Sovereignty. Thus, for us to reading any further in Weisman’s work seems like a bit of a waste of time; for the following reasons:
  1. Weisman presupposes foundational law that does not apply to the United States of America; and
  2. Weisman misapplies the meaning, application of and effect of Sovereignty.
Thus, that which follows will definitely be tainted by those errors; rendering such a work to something that one may have interest in reading only after the law is learned from the source and there is “spare time” left in abundance for reading fictional ideas and treatises. Please understand that that comment in no way implies that Weisman has no good ideas. However, it does imply that for us studying such a work would be like studying some religionist’s ideologies about their gospel before learning from a scriptural source like Torah.

Therefore, our answer to your inquiry ignores any potential input from Weisman’s work and comes purely from the law itself.

Respectively: if the laws of the State (constitution, etc.) require a clause like the one you suggested, then that clause is so required. However, if said laws do not require such an enactment clause, the same is not required.

The bottom line: the only way to know is: “Use the Standard for Review and study the law itself, firsthand, to discover its contents and application.”

Also, if your desire to study and learn the law is an element in your life in which you desire more success you may want to participate in Team Law’s Success Network. Check it out!

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.

As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Return to “Patriot Mythology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest